ISIS in Iraq and Syria

2cents said:
@antihenry, you any thoughts on what Russia's endgame is here? How deeply involved is Putin willing to become do you think? It strikes me as a perfect opportunity for Russia's enemies to drain Moscow's resources, although I'm not sure Obama considers Russia an enemy the way a Republican president likely would.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what Putin's endgame is. You'll have to ask Raoul, he's an expert on the subject and knows more about Putin's goals than Putin himself.

I guess he probably wants to elevate Russia's status as a major player in the world affairs and is willing to go to serious lengths to do so. Whether he's capable of actually pulling that off, remains to be seen. I don't think he wants Russian troops on the ground in Syria, but I'm fairly sure that he's worried about radical islamist organizations strengthening in the southern borders of Russia. The Northern Caucasus in particular is a problematic region in the country and the extremists have been active there since the first Chechen war. I imagine, among other things, Putin would prefer to hit the radicals in Syria rather than wait for them to do some serious damage in the south of Russia, which is a very distinct possibility given how fast those terrorist networks spread their influence and how far they've gotten in terms of taking over territories and various infrastructure in a matter of a few years. I'm afraid some dangerous times are ahead of us and the whole civilized world should put away the differences for a moment and concentrate on dealing with that particular threat. With the refugee crisis in Europe the problem will only get worse.
 
MUFAN79 said:
USA is in over a year into the war against ISIS with nothing to show for it.
Click to expand...

They've been involved with the retaking of Tikrit and the battle in Kobane, both of which repelled ISIS from advancing, which is a positive contribution for an effort that has only involved airstrikes, as well as keeping ISIS off the Haditha Dam and saving Yazidis from Sinjar Mountain. That's about all you can do when the rest of the vermin are embedded within large cities where airstrikes would also affect civilians.
 
2cents said:
@antihenry, you any thoughts on what Russia's endgame is here? How deeply involved is Putin willing to become do you think? It strikes me as a perfect opportunity for Russia's enemies to drain Moscow's resources, although I'm not sure Obama considers Russia an enemy the way a Republican president likely would.
Click to expand...

The end game for Putin is to stay in power against a backdrop of a crumbling economy and years of corrupt governance. He can never leave power because he would almost certainly be prosecuted for any number of transgressions from the 90s onwards. That's why he has become increasingly authoritarian and controlling and used nationalism and identity to promote post-Soviet neo-Imperialism in Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and now Syria. Had he been a proper statesman from the beginning and left office after a term or two, he would never have had to go down the contagious path of becoming an authoritarian dictator.
 
Raoul said:
They've been involved with the retaking of Tikrit and the battle in Kobane, both of which repelled ISIS from advancing, which is a positive contribution for an effort that has only involved airstrikes, as well as keeping ISIS off the Haditha Dam and saving Yazidis from Sinjar Mountain. That's about all you can do when the rest of the vermin are embedded within large cities where airstrikes would also affect civilians.
Click to expand...

That wasn't always the case.
Again...It's very suspicious and unexplainable how and why these bloodthirsty killers can ride around in large convoys thru Iraq and Syria while "under" US+Allies air superiority.
 
MUFAN79 said:
That wasn't always the case.
Again...It's very suspicious and unexplainable how and why these bloodthirsty killers can ride around in large convoys thru Iraq and Syria while "under" US+Allies air superiority.
Click to expand...

Plenty of them have been obliterated when they tried rolling around in convoys, including Baghdadi himself who narrowly escaped death on at least one occasion after an airstrike.
 
The more I read these threads, the more I think Raoul must be a paid internet shill. Some of the stuff he says is Baghdad Bob level propaganda. The last couple pages have been cringe-worthy.

I honestly think he needs to step away from these threads. It makes it exceedingly difficult to have honest open discussions when someone who is a forum admin so blatantly bias in his point of view is very active in the discussion.
 
antihenry said:
I have no idea what Putin's endgame is. You'll have to ask Raoul, he's an expert on the subject and knows more about Putin's goals than Putin himself.

I guess he probably wants to elevate Russia's status as a major player in the world affairs and is willing to go to serious lengths to do so. Whether he's capable of actually pulling that off, remains to be seen. I don't think he wants Russian troops on the ground in Syria, but I'm fairly sure that he's worried about radical islamist organizations strengthening in the southern borders of Russia. The Northern Caucasus in particular is a problematic region in the country and the extremists have been active there since the first Chechen war. I imagine, among other things, Putin would prefer to hit the radicals in Syria rather than wait for them to do some serious damage in the south of Russia, which is a very distinct possibility given how fast those terrorist networks spread their influence and how far they've gotten in terms of taking over territories and various infrastructure in a matter of a few years. I'm afraid some dangerous times are ahead of us and the whole civilized world should put away the differences for a moment and concentrate on dealing with that particular threat. With the refugee crisis in Europe the problem will only get worse.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. I'm trying to think of successful external military interventions/actions in the Middle East in recent years, all I can come up with since 1973 is the Saudi squashing of Bahrain's Arab Spring moment in 2011, the Israelis' putting down of the second Palestinian intifada around 2004/5, and the 1991 Gulf War (perhaps the Syrian occupation of much of Lebanon from 1976 onwards as well). In the first two cases the threat was on the doorstep and deemed an absolute priority - in that respect similar perhaps to how Russians viewed the recent Ukraine crisis. The Gulf War coalition had very clear and limited aims which it was able to achieve (although the aftermath was not pretty for the Iraqi Lurds and Shi'a).

Against those relative success stories we have a number of uncertain outcomes or stalemates (the various Israeli actions in Gaza since 2007 and in Lebanon in 2006, the NATO operations against the Taliban in 2001 and Qadhafi in 2011, and the current GCC war in Yemen) and some standout disasters (I'm thinking especially of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the Soviets in Afghanistan in 1979, the Americans in Iraq in 2003, and Saddam's adventures in Iran and Kuwait). It'll be interesting to see how the Russian operation in Syria develops, but I'd say based purely on the above cases a clearly defined 'success' will be hard to win, and a quagmire may be difficult to avoid.
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
They've been involved with the retaking of Tikrit and the battle in Kobane, both of which repelled ISIS from advancing, which is a positive contribution for an effort that has only involved airstrikes, as well as keeping ISIS off the Haditha Dam and saving Yazidis from Sinjar Mountain. That's about all you can do when the rest of the vermin are embedded within large cities where airstrikes would also affect civilians.
Click to expand...

Tikrit was won back largely thanks to Iranian-backed Iraqi militias with some US air support. Kobane was bravely held by brave Kurdish fighters despite the US's allies Turkey pretty much letting ISIS dash back into Turkey in time for tea, and back again.
 
Nucks said:
The more I read these threads, the more I think Raoul must be a paid internet shill. Some of the stuff he says is Baghdad Bob level propaganda. The last couple pages have been cringe-worthy.

I honestly think he needs to step away from these threads. It makes it exceedingly difficult to have honest open discussions when someone who is a forum admin so blatantly bias in his point of view is very active in the discussion.
Click to expand...

Why don't you rebut some of the things you disagree with and let's see whose logic makes more sense.
 
Kaos said:
Tikrit was won back largely thanks to Iranian-backed Iraqi militias with some US air support. Kobane was bravely held by brave Kurdish fighters despite the US's allies Turkey pretty much letting ISIS dash back into Turkey in time for tea, and back again.
Click to expand...

Both with the help of airstrikes to soften up IS targets. It's quite likely both would still be in IS hands if not for them.
 
Map showing location of Russian strikes - all miles away from any IS targets, although it's not honest to label the green areas as FSA when they're dominated by other jihadists:

CQOrD_lWwAA251R.jpg
 
In lieu of that...

Russia must confirm airstrikes in Syria targeted IS militants and not opponents of the Assad regime, Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond has said.

Mr Hammond said actions in supports of the Assad regime were “incompatible” with the fight against IS militants.

“Russia has taken a major decision and assumed a heavy responsibility by this public propping up of Assad while he continues the terrorisation of his own people,” Mr Hammond said in an address to the UN Security Council.

“It is not possible to be an effective part of the fight against ISIL and at the same time, with the same force, be attacking the moderate oppositionists resisting the oppression of the Assad regime.

“It’s very important that Russia is able to confirm to the international community that the military action it has undertaken in Syria this morning is directed at ISIL and Al-Qaeda affiliated targets only.”

US Secretary of State John Kerry said Washington would have “grave concerns” if Russia hit Syrian targets where IS fighters were not present.
Click to expand...

Putin needs to go.
 
It is not possible to be an effective part of the fight against ISIL and at the same time, with the same force, be attacking the moderate oppositionists resisting the oppression of the Assad regime.
Click to expand...

Not possible? Same could be said of Turkey targeting Kurds.

What a load of bs :lol:

"Save our moderate Al Qaeda".

Syria is a sovereign nation, and the only aircraft that have been invited to
enter Syrian airspace are the Russians. The US seems to work on the basis that they can fly where they want and bomb who they want because they can.
 
Putin is an idiot who has now put his own citizens at unnecessary risk. I won't be surprised if few bombs goes off in russia killing innocent peoples in retaliation of airstrikes.
 
kid777 said:
Putin is an idiot who has now put his own citizens at unnecessary risk. I won't be surprised if few bombs goes off in russia killing innocent peoples in retaliation of airstrikes.
Click to expand...
Exactly - also, I don't get this guy, he has gone out of his way to placate the majority of the Chechnyan Muslim base, a lot of whom empathise with the likes of the FSA and FSA-related bodies. Bombing these guys is only going to make that relationship untenable.
 
Nucks said:
The more I read these threads, the more I think Raoul must be a paid internet shill. Some of the stuff he says is Baghdad Bob level propaganda. The last couple pages have been cringe-worthy.

I honestly think he needs to step away from these threads. It makes it exceedingly difficult to have honest open discussions when someone who is a forum admin so blatantly bias in his point of view is very active in the discussion.
Click to expand...
:lol: This would bang on in Palestine thread and if directed at holyland red.
 
Nucks said:
The more I read these threads, the more I think Raoul must be a paid internet shill. Some of the stuff he says is Baghdad Bob level propaganda. The last couple pages have been cringe-worthy.

I honestly think he needs to step away from these threads. It makes it exceedingly difficult to have honest open discussions when someone who is a forum admin so blatantly bias in his point of view is very active in the discussion.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is fair. In fact I think this is actually a bit ridiculous, and makes you sound a bit petty.

Full disclosure - I very often find myself on Raoul's side in geopolitical threads like this one, but the complete opposite on social issues. That's life. That's what a forum is for. It's where people agree to disagree. Raoul - from all I've seen - is simply doing that. He doesn't get more of a say than the rest of us do because he's an admin. But he also doesn't get less of a say.

Unless Raoul has been banning people or giveing them infranctions for disagreeing with him (I saw someone recently get a light verbal warning for derailing, seemed fair to me), he has every right to his opinion. As do you.
 
Last edited:
kid777 said:
Putin is an idiot who has now put his own citizens at unnecessary risk. I won't be surprised if few bombs goes off in russia killing innocent peoples in retaliation of airstrikes.
Click to expand...

So what's the alternative?

As if terrorists need a reason to kill innocents. Do you think, if you do nothing, they won't touch you? They're fanatics, they have no respect for human life.
 
Uzz said:
Exactly - also, I don't get this guy, he has gone out of his way to placate the majority of the Chechnyan Muslim base, a lot of whom empathise with the likes of the FSA and FSA-related bodies. Bombing these guys is only going to make that relationship untenable.
Click to expand...

Most Chechens couldn't give two shits about FSA, Syria or anything else that doesn't concern them personally. Those few that do have already joined the radical groups in the Middle East and are taking part in the warfare.
 
naturalized said:
I don't think this is fair. In fact I think this is actually a bit ridiculous, and makes you sound a bit petty.

Full disclosure - I very often find myself on Raoul's side in geopolitical threads like this one, but the complete opposite on social issues. That's life. That's what a forum is for. It's where people agree to disagree. Raoul - from all I've seen - is simply doing that. He doesn't get more of a say than the rest of us do because he's an admin. But he also doesn't get less of a say.

Unless Raoul has been banning people or giveing them infranctions for disagreeing with him (I saw someone recently get a light verbal warning for derailing, seemed fair to me), he has every right to his opinion. As do you.
Click to expand...

Its par for the course in these threads. Things often get heated which should be expected. No one gets infracted or thread banned unless they flagrantly break the rules.
 
kid777 said:
Putin is an idiot who has now put his own citizens at unnecessary risk. I won't be surprised if few bombs goes off in russia killing innocent peoples in retaliation of airstrikes.
Click to expand...

He could've easily helped the coalition of what is now dozens of countries contributing to the fight against ISIS, but instead opted to help Assad fend off the non-ISIS rebels who are knocking on his door. Shows where is true priorities are - preserving the Assad regime and his naval bases at all costs, while cloaking his intervention as anti ISIS.
 
Uzz said:
In lieu of that...



Putin needs to go.
Click to expand...

He's not likely to stop since this sort of thing diverts domestic attention from his rubbish economic conditions. When the quality of life and value of the Ruble are plummeting and costs of living are soaring, what better way to change the subject than to appeal to nationalism and security fears by invading Ukraine and Syria. A clear signal of weakness on his part.
 
antihenry said:
Most Chechens couldn't give two shits about FSA, Syria or anything else that doesn't concern them personally. Those few that do have already joined the radical groups in the Middle East and are taking part in the warfare.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Chechnyans are sympathetic to the FSA and middle rebels cause. Their president is vehemently anti IS, though, even though some have joined IS' ranks.
 
Nucks said:
The more I read these threads, the more I think Raoul must be a paid internet shill. Some of the stuff he says is Baghdad Bob level propaganda. The last couple pages have been cringe-worthy.

I honestly think he needs to step away from these threads. It makes it exceedingly difficult to have honest open discussions when someone who is a forum admin so blatantly bias in his point of view is very active in the discussion.
Click to expand...

I generally find him a level headed poster but he is to US foreign policy what GlastonSpur is to Spurs football club. US could drop a nuke tomorrow and he could find an argument to justify it.
 
Uzz said:
Actually, the Chechnyans are sympathetic to the FSA and middle rebels cause. Their president is vehemently anti IS, though, even though some have joined IS' ranks.
Click to expand...

When you say Chechnyans you mean Chechens, right? And when you say Chechens, you mean the whole nation, close to 1,5 million in Russia alone? Or a few hundred? A thousand? It's a bit of a generalization, no? Now I don't question your knowledge on Syria because you seem to have a lot of inside info, albeit with pro-FSA bias, but I was born and raised in Grozny, which happens to be the capital of Chechen Republic and lived there until I was 25. I still have many friends and even relatives among the Chechens, so when I say something on the subject, I'm not just making things up. Is there a possibility there are some Chechens fighting in the FSA? Maybe, but I doubt there are many. Most Chechen fighters in the Middle East are with ISIS and other radical groups and they're not welcomed back home for obvious reasons. Most Chechens living in Chechen Republic and anywhere else in Russia don't care one way or the other, they have other concerns. There are some radicals, especially among young generation, but like I said, they tend to sympathize with ISIS and the like and couldn't voice their views publicly, anyway. Putin can wipe his ass with FSA tomorrow and most Chechens wouldn't care. I mean, there are thousands of Muslims killing each other non stop for decades now, including Chechen radicals killing other Chechens, worrying about some rebel group in another country isn't high on their list of priorities.
 
Last edited:
crappycraperson said:
I generally find him a level headed poster but he is to US foreign policy what GlastonSpur is to Spurs football club. US could drop a nuke tomorrow and he could find an argument to justify it.
Click to expand...

I'm generally pro-western, despite not being someone of western descent. I've seen both sides of the coin and am comfortable doubling down on western values in the face of theocratic fascists and authoritarian dictatorships.
 
Raoul said:
He could've easily helped the coalition of what is now dozens of countries contributing to the fight against ISIS, but instead opted to help Assad fend off the non-ISIS rebels who are knocking on his door. Shows where is true priorities are - preserving the Assad regime and his naval bases at all costs, while cloaking his intervention as anti ISIS.
Click to expand...

Russia had naval military bases in Syria since Soviet times. Russian needs Tartus and Syria. This makes geopolitical sense. Protecting their own interests. Nothing wrong with that. They probably want to prove once again they are a superpower & a main player in the Middle East.
 
Raoul said:
I'm generally pro-western, despite not being someone of western descent. I've seen both sides of the coin and am comfortable doubling down on western values in the face of theocratic fascists and authoritarian dictatorships.
Click to expand...

I am not looking for an argument so don't want to go into specific. It is more of a general observation, I don't think I have ever read you criticizing any US foreign policy move at it's present time, don't think that has anything to do with western values. In any case, it is intellectually dishonest to claim it is all about western values when a major part of US foreign policy is to prop up dictators/autocratic regimes which are faithful to its cause.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...n-Syria-on-Isil-to-US-anger-live-updates.html

Hezbollah and the regime are preparing major ground offensive, Telegraph source confirms.

A Syrian from Damascus with close contacts to regime officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Hezbollah and the regime are preparing a major ground offensive on rebel-held parts of Homs following the Russian aerial bombardment, Ruth Sherlock in Washington and the Telegraph's former Middle East correspondent reports.

There is no Isil in that area. It's part of a project to secure the area between the Alawite heartland Latakia and Damascus. In a precursor to potential de facto partition of the country, the regime is focusing on making this area its heartland.

Two sources told the Telegraph that recent negotiations have been taking place in Zabadani, a flashpoint on the border with Lebanon trying to move its remaining population to rebel held Sunni majority Idlib, whilst, at the same time, repopulating it with people from Shia villages in the north of the country.

The air strikes are not targeting Isil, the Syrian source said: "They want to clean the country of non-Isil rebels, and then the US will work with them as Isil will be the only enemy," he said.
 
crappycraperson said:
I am not looking for an argument so don't want to go into specific. It is more of a general observation, I don't think I have ever read you criticizing any US foreign policy move at it's present time, don't think that has anything to do with western values. In any case, it is intellectually dishonest to claim it is all about western values when a major part of US foreign policy is to prop up dictators/autocratic regimes which are faithful to its cause.
Click to expand...

I generally don't because most of the arguments advanced around here are so critical of various US policies that its more rational to take the US position that those supporting the likes of Iran, Hezbollah, Russia, Al-Qaeda, or Assad. I do agree with the likes of Kaos in that the US needs to be more level in its foreign policy by pressuring reforms in Bahrain, Saudi, and Yemen in addition to Syria, Iraq, and Libya.
 
antihenry said:
Haven't the US led coalition launched thousands of air trikes in Syria by now? Was there any collateral damage? Where are all the pics and videos of killed women and children? Or they were so precise that only terrorists were hit?

Then there is a first air strike launched by Russians and before you know it the videos and photos of killed and wounded civilians are all over the net. Interesting.
Click to expand...

Speaking of which.

This is from yesterday.



This is from September 25.



German Bild didn't bother to check.

http://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/syrien-krise/putins-krieg-in-syrien-42779276.bild.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.